quoted from a republih8racist sight:
If a premium was $100 and went UP by 3000%, the new premium would be $3000/3,000 percent is another way of saying "factor of 30."
$10,000 reduced by a factor of 30 would be $333.33 dollars.
Mathematically possible, but highly unlikely.
edit: I can internet warrior too!
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
quoted from a republih8racist sight:Yay impossibility of making math dumb!
edit: I can internet warrior too!
but that isn't how percentages work. 1000.00 reduces to 333.000 has only been reduced by 67% right?
Something can go up by 3000% it can't go down by that without being negative.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llrT-2gN2lImmm
on the one hand, if i believed in god that would certainly seem like something resembling divine intervention.
on the other hand, i highly doubt god gives a shit a bout a window washer.
Originally posted by Autokrat
Its a rhetorical trick on Obama's part. What makes a better sound bite? Factor of 30, or 3000%?
At this point neither. Anything Obama says will be ridiculed and anyone he campaigns for will lose. It's very ironic. The Democrats had a chance to completely destroy the Republicans when he was elected. Now the exact opposite is true come midterm elections. I didn't like Bush as a president but this guy's really making me miss him. Now I see what happens when the Democrats control all. You need one party in the presidential seat, and another party in the house/senate.
You need one party in the presidential seat, and another party in the house/senate.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
To be fair, that's about what he got anyway. A supermajority and now results, because getting deomcrats to work together is like herding cats, while Republicans work together like well trained attack dogs (which is a good thing when you want something to get done.)
Democrats*. What do you mean he got results? Or are you just saying that all this is result of having a supermajority? Not clear on your meaning.
Originally posted by Autokrat
In politics, people will use just about anything as a justification to push forth their own agendas. This is true for any ideology, be it secular or religious. Just as a Christian would tell you that the Crusades were a perversion of Christian ideas, I would tell you that what Hitler and Stalin did are a perversion of secular ethics. This is the danger of dogmatism, acting without the use of rigorous reason. As a secular humanist, I would argue that logic and reason should be used as tools for achieving the goal of maximizing happiness and minimizing pain. When this method is abandoned in the name of a dogmatic political or religious goal then so have the very foundations with which secularism is founded on.
I object when sexual minorities (homosexuals, intersex individuals) suffer because America is a Judo-Christian nation. I believe that something marriage should, on a legal level, be nothing more than a civil union for the purposes of things like taxes and medical records. If a person wishes to add religious significance to the event based on what they believe, then they could do so.
Aside from the fact that close to half of the American population believes that Creationism should be taught in schools, my worry is more based on the mindset of a person that believes in a literal creation. That requires one or both of two things: a literal/fundamentalist mindset and/or gross scientific ignorance in areas of geology, physics, biology, chemistry, and just about every other hard science. The latter doesn't bother me so much as the first one does. People with a literal mindset are dogmatic and therefore not possessed of the disposition to act rationally. These people influence social mores in such a way that minorities or people that deviate are discriminated against. To me, this is wrong.
I've never even heard of the seven Laws of Noah, so yes I suspect we were reading different texts.
I don't oppose people working hard and being able to become rich, but you have to look at things from a bigger picture. I'm not some communist that believes we should all have equal levels of wealth, but I do believe that shrinking the wealth gap will improve socioeconomic factors for the poor, leading to: a decrease in violent crime, less overcrowded prisons, better public health, and better education levels.
In response to your second question, I believe that America is something of a unique case. We have a large number of immigrants that come from extremely poor nations. They started out extremely poor and such I believe that this is why you now have the ghettos of the bigger cities. These conditions created a crime subculture in which you have entirely too many young people falling into crime. This creates an ugly cycle where each generation is stuck in poverty because the youth fail to break free of their socioeconomic conditions and instead fall into crime. Then they have children and the cycle continues anew. While I believe that these criminals should still be punished, I don't believe harsher sentences would do anything to fix the root source of the problem.
And completely off topic - AOE is why I aced history in High School. [/B]
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
To be fair, that's about what he got anyway. A supermajority and now results, because getting deomcrats to work together is like herding cats, while Republicans work together like well trained attack dogs (which is a good thing when you want something to get done.)
I meant "no" results.